Appel d'offre USAF pour avions ravitailleurs

IN THE end, they bowed to the inevitable. The decision this week by Northrop Grumman and its partner, EADS, to withdraw from a $35 billion contest with Boeing to provide the United States Air Force (USAF) with a new generation of aerial tankers had been well trailed, but it was still a bitter blow to the two defence firms. It was also a bad day both for America’s taxpayers and its armed forces.

Political controversy has never been far from the battle to replace USAF’s 500 or so Eisenhower-era KC-135 tankers. Boeing first won the contract in 2002 and then lost it when a congressional investigation discovered criminal collusion between the aerospace firm and an air-force official. Six years later, Northrop and EADS, the parent company of Airbus, pulled off a surprise victory when the USAF decided that the KC-45, its bigger and more modern (though more expensive) plane, based on the Airbus A330, represented better value than Boeing’s offering, based on the 767.

Most neutral experts agreed that the KC-45 was the better aircraft. But the Pentagon’s willingness to brave outraged claims from Congress that it was showering money and jobs on a European company “unfairly supported and subsidised by foreign powers” was a surprise. When Boeing protested, producing 110 complaints about the bidding process that (partly because of the earlier scandal) had been unusually fair and transparent, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog, upheld seven of them. The nub of Boeing’s complaint was that the USAF had used subjective criteria to reach its decision in favour of the KC-45, which had inherently disadvantaged its smaller plane.

The GAO has the power only to recommend, so the Pentagon could have stuck to its guns. Instead, the air force issued a new draft Request for Proposals (RFP) last September that in effect nullified the KC-45’s advantages—that it can deliver more fuel to front-line aircraft and evacuate more troops. A Northrop executive described the terms as a “lowest-common-denominator approach designed to favour a less capable, smaller aircraft by turning the contest into a cost shoot-out.” Northrop told the Department of Defence that unless the RFP was revised in its final version, it would not bid. Apart from some minor tweaks, nothing changed, ensuring that Boeing would be left as the sole bidder.

The two Republican senators from Alabama, where EADS was planning to establish an assembly line to build the KC-45 and a freighter version of the A330, were quick to condemn what they regard as a political stitch-up that put jobs in traditionally Democratic Washington state (Boeing’s home) before employment in their region. Senator Richard Shelby says: “The final RFP discredits the integrity of the entire process.” Senator Jeff Sessions believes Northrop’s forced withdrawal has left an “irreparable stain” on a programme already marked by scandal.

There have also been expressions of anger in Europe. Germany’s economy minister, Rainer Brüderle, said he saw “signs of protectionism”. The European Commission issued a statement saying that it “would be extremely concerned if it were to emerge that the terms of tender were such as to inhibit open competition for the contract.” The commission also noted that the trade in military gear between the European Union and America strongly favours the latter—in 2008 America exported $5 billion-worth but imported only $2.2 billion from Europe.

As for EADS, all is not lost. Its A400m military transport may have cost it a lot of money: this week it announced a charge for the troubled programme of €1.8 billion ($2.5 billion). But it is an aircraft with unique abilities that could appeal to the USAF—if the airfield is level.

Admin a écrit:Bonsoir,

Une position intéressant d'EADS North America

1) trop petit pour le moment pour y aller seul
2) NG a poussé pour ne pas y aller
3) pas de problème de protectionisme, simplement un pb avec le contexte économique

La suite ici

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/03/11/10.xml&headline=EADS Was Unable To Prime On KC-X&channel=defense

Bonne soirée

Source: EADS Seeking New Tanker-Bid Partner

The U.S. Air Force's $35 billion KC-X competition may not end up being a sole-source competition. It appears that EADS is looking to buy time to find a new partner to bid in the fight against tanker rival Boeing.
"We're hearing that EADS has approached DoD and asked for an extension to the tanker bid submittal deadline," one congressional aide said today.Related Topics

The deadline is in mid-May.
Meanwhile, Pentagon Acquisition chief Ashton Carter dodged numerous questions from reporters on the matter during a March 12 press conference at the Pentagon. All Carter would say is that the Pentagon "values the contribution of European industry to the choices that we can make as a department." He said that although the Pentagon doesn't have "an indication of any additional bidders, [DoD] is happy to have a competition."
Carter had earlier in the day refused to talk about the matter earlier during an interview with Defense News.
EADS North America officials also refused to comment on the matter, with company spokesman Guy Hicks saying March 12, "We don't comment on any communications between [EADS] and our customers."
One senior EADS official said earlier this week that he had serious doubts the company has enough time to find a new U.S. partner that could handle a $35 billion deal, such as Lockheed Martin, L-3 Communications or Raytheon.
However, Raytheon issued a cryptic statement March 12 when asked whether company officials were in talks with EADS about a tanker partnership.
"We have the technology and capabilities to support the tanker program in a number of ways, but we have to refer [inquiries on the matter] to EADS," a company spokeswoman said.
Lockheed and L-3 were unavailable for comment at press time.USAF Moving Ahead

Meanwhile, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and service Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told lawmakers during a March 10 House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing that they intend to move ahead with the competition as planned.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said later in the week that the Pentagon will have to sharpen its pencils when negotiating with Boeing to ensure that the company doesn't try to use the de facto sole-source bid to gouge taxpayers on its 767-based bid, which is reportedly much cheaper than EADS' Airbus A330-based bid.
Northrop and EADS say that the final KC-X request for proposals (RfP) emphasized cost and other factors that "heavily weigh in favor of the smaller, less capable Boeing tanker," according to a March 8 statement from EADS North America Chairman Ralph Crosby. "Northrop Grumman's analysis of the RfP reaffirmed those concerns and prompted the decisions not to bid."
Despite recent developments, several analysts agree that time may have run out for EADS.
"Finding someone else would be tough to do unless they have already done the ground work" to establish a brand new KC-X partner, said Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Senior Fellow Mark Gunzinger on March 10.
Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group was even more dubious, saying in a March 9 e-mail when asked whether he thought the Air Force might grant EADS extra time to put together a new tanker partnership.
"Hell, no," Aboulafia wrote. "EADS today said they were withdrawing - period."

As EADS considers to be cagey about its options for possibly entering the USAF KC-X aerial refueler competition, the Pentagon signals an open mind.

Geoff Morrell, press secretary to Robert Gates, issued the following statement today in response to questions about the tanker RFP:

"The Department has received notification from EADS North America indicating possible interest in competing for the Air Force's KC-X Tanker and we would welcome that. Consistent with our commitment to conduct a fair and open competition, the Department invites proposals from all qualified contractors and, if necessary, we would consider a reasonable extension to the RFP deadline. That is not unusual. In fact, a few recent examples include BAMS, VH-71, Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) II, LOGCAP IV, LCS, LPD-17 Repair Services, and FMTV."

This comes after harsh claims of protectionism from European allies when EADS's prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, pulled out of the competition, claiming that the RFP was skewed toward the smaller Boeing 767 offering.

The World Trade Organization is set to release its final ruling on European subsidies to Airbus on Tuesday, a source familiar with the case confirmed Friday.
A WTO panel issued a preliminary ruling last year that European subsidies violated trade rules, although that ruling was confidential.
Next week's ruling will confirm details of which programs the WTO found to have prohibited or actionable subsidies, and clear the way for expected appeals. It will also increase pressure from Boeing allies for the Pentagon account for the ruling in its aerial refueling tanker request, particularly now that Airbus parent EADS is considering a solo bid following tanker partner Northrop Grumman's pullout from the contest earlier this month.

Ravitailleurs américains: des Russes sans doute en course

Le Pentagone, déjà approché par Boeing et peut-être par Airbus, devrait également étudier une proposition du constructeur russe des Iliouchine, intéressé par son appel d'offres à 35 milliards de dollars pour la fourniture d'avions ravitailleurs.
Ce serait le plus gros contrat jamais rapporté par une entreprise russe auprès des militaires américains.
John Kirkland, avocat américain du constructeur UAC, détenu majoritairement par l'Etat russe, a affirmé à l'AFP que son client allait "annoncer lundi une coentreprise avec une société américaine pour répondre à l'appel d'offres pour le programme d'avions ravitailleurs".
M. Kirkland n'a pas précisé quel serait le partenaire américain de cette proposition, se bornant à indiquer qu'il s'agissait d'une société cotée.
Il a en revanche affirmé que le Premier ministre russe Vladimir Poutine s'était déjà personnellement entretenu avec le président américain Barack Obama, la dernière fois qu'ils se sont rencontrés.
"Obama a donné à Poutine son assurance que (le constructeur russe) serait traité sur la même base que les autres, que s'ils étaient les meilleurs pour respecter les critères, ils l'emporteraient".
Enfin, M. Kirkland a indiqué que les Russes entendaient pousser le dossier durant la visite en cours de la secrétaire d'Etat Hillary Clinton à Moscou. Le vice-Premier ministre russe "Sergueï Ivanov voudrait en parler personnellement à Hillary Clinton pendant qu'elle est à Moscou", a-t-il dit.
L'irruption d'un constructeur russe est une nouvelle surprise dans ce dossier, qui n'a pas manqué de rebondissements.
Le groupe EADS, qui semblait hors course à la suite du refus de son partenaire américain Northrop Grumman de participer à une compétition qu'il estimait biaisée, a en effet indiqué vendredi matin qu'il envisageait finalement de tout de même faire une proposition.
De source informée, on a indiqué que l'avion qui serait proposé par UAC serait une version modifiée de l'avion Iliouchine Il-96, qui serait baptisé Il-98, sensiblement de la même taille que le 767 modifié proposé par Boeing, mais aux coût de fonctionnement proche de celui des KC-135 actuellement utilisés par l'armée de l'Air.
L'appareil serait "construit en Russie", mais "assemblé dans le sud-est des Etats-Unis".
Pour les partisans du dossier, l'appareil serait à même de respecter tous les critères fixés par le Pentagone, avec un coût inférieur de 10% à celui de Boeing.
"Bizarre!", s'est exclamé Richard Aboulafia, analyste de Teal Group spécialisé dans l'aéronautique, interrogé par l'AFP sur ce nouvel acteur de la compétition.
Selon lui, UAC "n'a aucune chance. Outre les problèmes évidents de sécurité, il y a de forts doutes sur leur capacité à construire un avion à réaction qui soit au niveau d'Airbus ou de Boeing".
Car autant les militaires américains utilisent des hélicoptères ou des avions cargo (Antonov) de fabrication russe, autant les performances de l'aviation civile russe sont médiocres, voire "désastreuses", selon M. Aboulafia.
En attendant, le Pentagone doit encore formellement accepter de prolonger de trois mois le délai de l'appel d'offres, comme l'a demandé EADS, la maison mère d'Airbus, et comme le souhaiteraient sans doute aussi les Russes.
Le délai actuel court jusqu'au 10 mai.
L'appel d'offres pour la fourniture de 179 avions ravitailleurs à l'armée américaine avait été attribué dans un premier temps à Boeing en 2003, puis à Airbus (EADS) et son allié américain Northrop Grumman en 2008. Mais il avait à chaque fois été annulé.

WASHINGTON, March 23 (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Tuesday it remains in active talks on the request of Europe's EADS (EAD.PA) for a 90-day extension to the May 10 deadline for aerial tanker bids, and it has not yet reached a decision.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said EADS had expressed some interest in bidding as a prime contractor against Boeing Co (BA.N) to build 179 refueling planes for the Air Force after Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) bowed out.
"We are right now engaged in active discussions with the company to better understand the reasons why they would need an extension," Morrell told reporters.
"I would say those discussions are going very well thus far and we have not come to a conclusion, and therefore have not made a decision yet about whether to extend the bidding period any further."
One source who is closely following the discussions said the Pentagon could announce its decision as soon as Wednesday.
Sean O'Keefe, chief executive of EADS North America, told reporters on Monday that the company expected to hear back from the Pentagon within the next few days.
German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle on Tuesday said it would be fair if the U.S. government accepted EADS' request for a longer period to ready a bid as a prime contractor.
Northrop and EADS, the parent company of Airbus, won a projected $35 billion contract to build an A330-based tanker for the Air Force in February 2008; but the Pentagon canceled the deal later that year after government auditors faulted the procurement process and upheld a Boeing protest.
Northrop decided earlier this month that it would not compete for the work this time around, saying revamped rules for the competition favored Boeing's smaller 767-based tanker.
EADS has been weighing a possible bid on its own, but has said it would need three months of additional time to prepare the huge amount of paperwork that would be involved.
Morrell told reporters last week that the Pentagon would consider making a "reasonable extension" to the deadline.
Top U.S. defense officials had hoped to have a competition for the big airplane contract, but insist that they have mechanisms to ensure that any sole-source deal with Boeing would be fair. Absent an EADS bid, Boeing is poised to grab a contract that could be worth up to $50 billion.
The Obama administration is also under pressure from its European allies, who reacted angrily after Northrop withdrew from the competition and warned Washington against adopting protectionist measures.
Even if it got the additional time it requested, EADS would face an uphill battle with any solo bid.
The company would also likely need to find another U.S. defense company to take on some of the classified work involved in the program, given that tanker operations are closely linked to the U.S. military's strategic planning for future wars.
Aerial tankers are used to refuel fighter jets and other military planes in mid-air, helping the United States project its power around the world.
Any EADS bid would also run into considerable opposition from Boeing supporters in Congress, who say a World Trade Organization ruling upholding U.S. claims that some European government payments to Airbus were subsidies should be factored into the Pentagon's tanker competition.
Airbus on Tuesday confirmed that a WTO panel had condemned European subsidies in a confidential ruling, but said the panel dismissed 70 percent of U.S. claims. It also said the dispute would likely drag on for years.
Guy Hicks, spokesman for EADS North America, said the U.S. government had decided to exempt the rival WTO cases brought by the United States and Europe from the tanker competition.
"The U.S. government has determined that ongoing WTO cases are irrelevant to U.S. defense acquisition and will not penalize U.S. warfighters by holding their needs hostage to an ongoing commercial trade dispute," Hicks said. (Additional reporting by Phil Stewart, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

Ravitailleurs-Les Européens ont déjà écrit à l'administration US
Les quatre pays européens qui participent à Airbus ont effectué une démarche commune auprès des Etats-Unis à propos de l'appel d'offres sur les avions ravitailleurs de l'US Air Force et n'envisagent pas de nouvelle initiative pour l'instant, a-t-on déclaré jeudi à l'Elysée.
La présidence française a démenti une information des Echos selon laquelle la France, l'Allemagne, la Grande-Bretagne et l'Espagne envisageaient de protester par écrit auprès de l'administration américaine sur les conditions qui ont amené la filiale d'EADS (EAD.PA: Cotation) à se retirer de la compétition, laissant le champ libre à Boeing (BA.N: Cotation).
"A ce stade, ce n'est pas prévu. Il y a déjà eu une lettre au mois de décembre signée par les quatre. Cette lettre est restée pour l'instant sans réponse, les Américains nous ont assuré qu'ils y donneraient une réponse très prochaine", dit l'Elysée. "A ce stade, il n'est pas prévu d'initiative supplémentaire", ajoute la présidence de la République.
Selon Les Echos, l'envoi d'une lettre, qui serait ainsi la deuxième du genre, resterait subordonné à l'issue des négociations entre Airbus et le Pentagone.
A l'Elysée, on souligne que la forte mobilisation des Européens depuis l'annonce du retrait d'Airbus est "sans doute" la raison qui a amené le ministère américain de la Défense "à envoyer des signaux laissant entendre qu'il pourrait rouvrir la compétition".
En visite la semaine prochaine aux Etats-Unis, Nicolas Sarkozy sera porteur d'un "message qui vise à s'assurer que si la compétition est rouverte, elle sera bien équitable et que c'est la condition pour que notre constructeur européen y participe", dit-on encore à l'Elysée.